Skip to main content

Caprock Escarpment of the Llano Estacado (south of Ralls, Texas)

Public Policy Polling (6/25-27, Texas voters, 1/14-16 in parens):

Barack Obama: 47 (45)
Rick Perry: 45 (45)
Undecided: 8 (11)

Barack Obama: 46 (46)
Sarah Palin: 44 (47)
Undecided: 10 (7)

Barack Obama: 42 (42)
Mitt Romney: 50 (49)
Undecided: 9 (9)

Barack Obama: 43
Herman Cain: 43
Undecided: 14

Barack Obama: 43
Tim Pawlenty: 44
Undecided: 13

Barack Obama: 44
Michele Bachmann: 47
Undecided: 9

Barack Obama: 40
Ron Paul: 45
Undecided: 15
(MoE: ±3.5%)

Based on PPP's prior poll, it's no surprise to see Rick Perry languishing in his home state. And his job approvals are a pretty lousy 43-52, little better than Obama's 42-55 rating. But Tom Jensen offers an important word of caution:

Before Democrats get too excited about the prospect of winning Texas this needs to be noted — the vast majority of undecideds in all of these match-ups disapprove of the job Obama is doing. For instance in the match-up with Perry, 88% of undecideds disapprove of Obama's job performance to only 8% who approve. If you allocate the undecided voters based on their assessment of Obama that shifts the numbers 7 points and puts Perry ahead by 5.

The undecideds break down similarly in most of the head to heads between Obama and the various respective GOP candidates, something that would seem to reflect a lot of voters disliking the President but having their doubts about the GOP field of candidates as well. When push comes to shove those folks are not likely to be in the President's corner.

Still, this isn't where the GOP field wants to be in an obviously must-win state like Texas, especially against an incumbent Democrat with very mediocre approvals. If Texas is interesting next November, then it's likely that a whole lot of other states won't be.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Perry is toxic (10+ / 0-)

    If he is the nominee, he probably will win Texas, but by less than McCain (probably 52-47). An incumbent Governor cannot under perform in his own state and expect to be viable elsewhere, because the negatives he has in a conservative state will be magnified twice as much in swing states.

    25, Male, CA-24, DK Elections Black Caucus Chair.

    by DrPhillips on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:11:15 PM PDT

    •  Yeah I'm seeing a 52-47 win for Perry in Texas (5+ / 0-)

      if he runs and is the nominee, both of which seem iffy.

      But even if he wins Texas, Perry seems like such a terrible candidate he'd be headed to a 10 point loss nationwide.  Seriously the people the GOP keeps talking up as potential candidates seem absolutely terrible.  Perry, Christie, Palin, Giuliani, Ryan...seriously wtf.  Nearly as bad as the current crop of candidates they have.

    •  You're not kidding (6+ / 0-)

      These are really awful numbers for Gov. Perry. I think he'd be narrowly favored to win the state, but he'd actually have to campaign and spend a significant amount of money. In Texas. Of which he has been governor for more than a decade.

      Seriously, this poll has President Obama putting Texas in the tossup column against Perry and Palin and lean Republican against everyone else but Romney. Texas.

      The national popular vote polls don't seem to be translating into a very favorable map for Republicans.

      Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:55:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Honestly (8+ / 0-)

        This is just incredible.  Poll after poll - even this far out and with the economy as sh%tty as it is - shows Obama competitive in places he shouldn't be.  This is a guy that's been tarred by his opposition as a foreigner, a Muslim, and everything in between, and he is still competing.  I'll keep saying it, but what is important here is not that he could win these places (I don't think he should realistically rely on winning ANY of these), but it just shows how unwilling folks are to just out-and-out toss him from office like the media keeps telling us is the case.

        •  I agree. (4+ / 0-)

          If the economy gets to the point where it's regularly creating 200,000 to 300,000 jobs per month, he'll win in a massive blow out, especially if the Republicans nominate someone like Bachmann. I suspect the Republicans are looking at this notion when considering that this good family man who isn't corrupt with lots of personal appeal and sky high support amongst non-whites has one big problem: a bad economy. That's why they are trying to block everything, even things they'd probably like to vote for.

          I'm holding out hope that growth is stronger in the second half of the year and/or that we get some sort of support, most likely in the form of a payroll tax cut. But man, I'm a wreck about this stuff, in both the political sense and the practical, people suffering sense.

      •  The big secret (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, SaoMagnifico, MichaelNY

        that the GOP seems to be ignoring with all the Perry talk is that nobody in Texas likes Rick Perry.  I mean, here in Denton County (normally a place that's about 60-65% Republican) I don't run into a lot of people who like him.

        27, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-07 (originally), liberal-leaning independent

        by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:20:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Perry looks good for the nomination on paper: 3-term governor of a big state, conservative across the board on the issues...and he polls about as well as Palin does among the people who know him best. Any Republican who votes strategically would have to conclude that he's unelectable.

          SSP poster. 41, CA-5, -0.25/-3.90

          by sacman701 on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:37:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If he gets in... (0+ / 0-)

            I fully expect Rep. Bachmann to slam him over his secessionist remarks. I'm guessing the architect of the "un-American members of Congress" witch-hunt isn't going to show a potentially strong rival any mercy over making comments that were literally un-American.

            Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

            by SaoMagnifico on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 08:12:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jncca, MichaelNY, James Allen

              I think that's a bit naive.  Ok, a lot naive.  This isn't how Republicans operate.  They don't criticize each other (especially if they aren't in power) unless they absolutely have to, even while running for the same nominations, and especially this far out.

              If Perry were to jump in, or anyone else for that matter, or someone started making an unexpected move up the polls, the other candidates would do what Republicans do best when they want to attack someone within their own party: whisper campaigns, push polling, proxy wars, etc...

              Not in a  million years would Bachmann ever just out-and-out demand Perry renounce his statement, or even directly attack it, even if she's totally on solid ground to do so.

              •  Where were you last year? (3+ / 0-)

                Your statement:

                I think that's a bit naive.  Ok, a lot naive.  This isn't how Republicans operate.  They don't criticize each other (especially if they aren't in power) unless they absolutely have to, even while running for the same nominations, and especially this far out.

                Hell, us Swingnuts coined the term "cat fud" specifically because we needed a catchphrase for the gratuitous Republican-on-Republican, holier-than-thou, my-first-word-was-Reagan bullshit that ended up costing Republicans what appeared to be surefire wins in several states and districts.

                Treasurer Mourdock doesn't seem to have gotten the "Republicans don't criticize each other" memo. He's been slamming Sen. Lugar as a RINO at every turn lately. Next door, Republicans are calling for Secy. Husted's head. In Florida, Gov. Scott and Republican legislative leaders have reportedly gotten into shouting matches even though they're supposedly on the same team. Parochial differences between Republican factions almost sunk maps in Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas and are threatening to torpedo the redistricting processes in Virginia and South Carolina.

                Just because Tim Pawlenty has no balls doesn't mean Republicans all still obey President Reagan's Eleventh Commandment. And Rep. Bachmann is decidedly from the faction that is all too happy to tear establishment Republicans and those the Tea Party Express deems "insufficiently pure" a new asshole.

                Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

                by SaoMagnifico on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 01:03:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Bachmann probably agrees with them (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Someone else would have to slam him.

              Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

              by MichaelNY on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 02:13:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  If Republicans can't get undecideds... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, RevolutionRock, TDDVandy, MichaelNY

    To the polls, and if Democrats make a big voter registration push in South Texas, Texas could a...tossup.

    Holy shit.

    Independent, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

    by SaoMagnifico on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 05:48:05 PM PDT

    •  Easier said than done. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Getting South Texas voters to the polls is... shall we say... difficult.  And they're not as reliably Democratic as you might think... Bush actually carried Cameron County (that's Brownsville) in 2004.

      Will be interesting to see how it might affect the Senate race if the Presidential race is close here, though.

      27, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-07 (originally), liberal-leaning independent

      by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:22:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Get people to vote for the devil they know (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico, MichaelNY

      It's a turnout fight at that point.

      Contesting Texas or not isn't so much a question of Obama winning the state. Obama winning Texas is gravy, there are clear paths to victory that don't include Texas and odds are that Obama is going to win VA, OH, IA, etc if he wins TX.

      The bigger question is if he has coattails or drag in the state.  If he makes a fight of Texas will he drag Sanchez or whoever runs (Tommy Lee Jones?) over the finish line?  That'd give the Dems a good shot at holding the Senate.

      •  If Obama Wins Texas (7+ / 0-)

        It mean's we're holding the Senate. It at the very least means Berkley's probably winning in NV and we're probably winning AZ, too.

        •  Beyond that. (0+ / 0-)

          If Obama contests the state, but doesn't win (just moves the needle to 48 or 49) what effect will that have on the Senate race.  Obama could potentially polarize the race, pushing swing voters away from the Senate candidate.  Or he could drive up base turnout and put the Senate candidate over the edge.

          •  The idea that Obama competing (4+ / 0-)

            could hurt down ballot candidates is ridiculous. They're gonna try to tie them to Obama anyways, it'll be better if Obama's actually doing reasonably well.

            •  Not at all (0+ / 0-)

              Ballot position matters, races at the top of the ticket get more attention and take priority in distributing resources.  This manifests in two ways that can be summed up as 'sucking up the oxygen'.

              At the level of voters people only have so much attention they're willing to pay to politics.  When you exceed that point you burn over turf.  The Obama campaign is one more set of ads on TV, another set of canvassers going door to door.  There's a mixed bag of evidence that burning over turf can decrease turnout and drive voters to vote in opposition.  There's consensus though that once burnt time and money spent on persuasion and GOTV in turf is time and money wasted.

              At the level of activists, higher up campaigns get more attention and resources.  Campaigns have three primary resources: time, people, money.  Money is the least local resource.  Thanks to the internet donor bases are more national than they've been.  But, an engaged campaign with a higher position can leech time.  If President Obama spends two days in Texas that's two days where the Dem nominee's earned media efforts are going to be less effective.  A competitive Obama campaign can leech people pretty easily.  OFA runs a strong field operation when it wants to.  That means volunteers knocking on doors.  Those volunteers only have one Saturday a week.

              My phrasing was wrong above.  It's not a matter of Obama actively swinging votes.  It's an opportunity cost.  If the Obama campaign constrains the Dem nominee they may have less ability to define themselves, for better or worse they'll be riding the Obama train.

              There's all manner of factors that can swing the effect of Obama competing in Texas one way or the other.  Do the campaigns work together well?  Who exactly do the Democrats nominate?  There are advantages to being the active campaign that's highest on the ballot.  There are also advantages to having a successful campaign to follow.  With Texas we're in novel territory.  I'm curious how those advantages measure when they're put on the scale.

    •  If I ever get around to posting my Texas diary, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaoMagnifico, ArkDem14, MichaelNY

      you'll see just how much untapped potential there is. As I think I described in another thread, it's entirely possible to make just mind boggling gains in Harris County alone.

      Think I'm kidding? (I'm going to round, just to make the math easier.) Harris County as a whole has about 4,092,000 people. If you assume that a full 30 percent of the Hispanic population is illegal, about 503,400 out of about 1,678,000 people, then we are down to 3,588,600 people. If about 29 percent of them are 18 or under, that brings us down to about 2,548,000. And if we assume that five percent of this pool of people can't vote for some reason, that brings us down to about 2,208,000 people.

      In 2008, in Harris County, Obama received 591,000 votes, while McCain received 572,000 votes. If we increased Obama's total by 70 percent and the Republican's total by 25 percent, Obama would have about 1,004,700 votes and the Republican would have about 715,000. (You can argue that these numbers are ludicrous, but I don't think they are. I think they'd be the result of an intense and ultimately successful effort by the Democrats, compared to an understandably weak effort by the Republicans.) Percentage wise, this translates into about 58.09 for Obama compared to 41.34 for the Republican. (This assumes that there are about 10,000 third-party voters overall in the county.) If we take this pool of voters as a percentage of the potential voters, we get a turnout rate of about... 67.49.

      Does that sound so impossible?

  •  It's surprising to me Obama's approvals are (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, ArkDem14, MichaelNY

    essentially the same as the 2008 results. Not sure that makes the state competitive, but hopefully Obama can at least improve on his 2008 performance in TX.

    •  I think he will, unless he's losing badly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, ArkDem14, MichaelNY

      throughout the country. I continue to believe his campaign will at least start off with a strong presence in the state. If it continues up until the election, which it probably will unless he's losing big, he's pretty much bound to do better. Perhaps it won't be enough to get to a win, but it wouldn't be surprising to see him at 47 or 48 percent if he's winning all of his 2008 states plus, say, Arizona and Georgia.

      •  Eh... I don't know if I buy that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        55-43 or so is pretty much the default result in Texas.  Which, of course, says something about Perry since he's never been able to outdo 55 percent of the vote -- he's not really that strong of a candidate; he's merely getting the default Republican vote (and in 2006, when a lot of them defected to third-party candidates, he didn't even get that.)

        Still, though, it's hard to see where that extra 4-5 percent of the vote comes from.

        27, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-07 (originally), liberal-leaning independent

        by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:33:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          He did a hell of alot worse than the default in his first Lieutenant Governor race against Sharp where he only won 50-49.

          21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

          by wwmiv on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 08:22:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That was 13 years ago (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Rural Texas was still open to voting for Democrats back then, for one thing (though the metro areas of the state were less Democratic than they are today.)

            27, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-07 (originally), liberal-leaning independent

            by TDDVandy on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 08:23:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The extra four or five percent that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ArkDem14, MichaelNY

          Obama would get without winning come come from any of the big counties. Getting an additional 100,000 votes from Harris County in 2008, for instance, would have given him about an additional point.

          The tempting thing about your state is that it's so big and has had such piss poor voter turnout in the past that there's just a lot of untapped potential.

          •  Oh I don't know about that. (4+ / 0-)

            Texas is for Democrats is what California is for Republicans. Every year Democrats nominate another nominee who they're absolutely convinced will do it this time. And every year that nominee loses by the same 12-point margin.

            I'll believe it when I see it.


            by Inoljt on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 10:32:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's kind of true, but the difference (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              is that we will run candidates that will be much more in tune with the overall sensibility of the state. It wouldn't surprise me to see a pro-life Democrat on a statewide ticket in Texas, for instance.

              The other big thing to consider is that Texas is becoming friendlier to us, at least in theory, for the same reason that California became friendlier to us--or rather, it's become less friendly to Republicans for the same reason California became less friendly to Republicans.

              Granted, we will need to work for it, and it's not clear we've done all that we could have been doing. I'm not saying that he definitely will do well, let alone win, but it wouldn't surprise me if the overall climate is better and he contests the state to see him do a lot better.

      •  I'd find 47 or 48% surprising. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Allen

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 02:17:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  That's Funny! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xenocrypt, MichaelNY

    Agree with us on everything / Or we won't help with anything / That kind of attitude / Just makes a split grow wider - Dead Kennedys

    by Rustbelt Dem on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 07:36:20 PM PDT

  •  The New Texas? (0+ / 0-)

    I applied the following the Obama/Romney numbers to what I would plot as the new numbers in Texas in the census.
    Which is:

    I applied to the Obama/Romney numbers:
    Anglo: 44
    Hispanic: 38
    A-A: 12
    Other: 6
    It gives an Obama 48-43 win over Romney

    I looked at the Exit Poll numbers from 2008,
    McCain%/ Share of Voters
    Anglo: 23% Obama (63)
    Hispanic: 63% Obama (20)
    A-A: 98% Obama (13)
    Other: n/a (4)

  •  Yes, so could (0+ / 0-)

    2012 in TX be like 2008 was in TX (where Dems make good gains in the House and in Congress)?  Also, has Ricardo Sanchez begun his campaign?

    Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo! So little time, so much to know!

    by KingofSpades on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 08:11:57 PM PDT

  •  Getting to be like clockwork (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, James Allen

    A sample roughly equivalent of 2008 voters, and Romney does in the ballpark of McCain, and the others do much worse.

    PPP must have done most of the country by now, and everywhere it is the same story.

    by tommypaine on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 10:48:18 PM PDT

  •  REGARDLESS.... (0+ / 0-)

    it is important for the Obama team to get on the ground in TX NOW and begin to soften the state up for future rewards.

    John Kerry deserves some credit for working so hard to soften up CO in 2004 - and it paid off in 2008.

    The demographic trends in TX are undeniable: as minority-majority state, it will move more and more blue, and this scares the shit out of the GOP. Within 4 years, we will hear TX GOPers talking about trying to split TX' electors as of 2020.

    Bush won TX by +22.86% margin.
    McCain won TX by +11.76% margin.

    That is almost exactly HALF the margin in just 4 years! Yes, McCain is not from TX as Bush is, but he comes from a neighboring state. He should have done better in TX and I bet, had Obama thrown the kitchen sink into the Secessionist Republic of of Texuuss in 2008, then it would have been McCain +6 or +7 instead of +12.

    If Obama pushes this to be a low single digit race, then the GOP will be forced to divert funds to their largest prize, TX, in order to keep a blamage from happening. And in doing so, the GOP will have less resources to try to go on the offensive elswhere. I would be very happy with a GOP 52 / Obama 48 race in 2012. For it opens doors for 2016.

    Imagine an electoral map where the Democratic party has a absolute lock on the 6 largest states in the Union: CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA. That is automatically 191 electors!

    So, REGARDLESS whether the Obama team thinks he can win the state, building up a larger democratic voter block for the future is the right thing to do now. And better to do it now, when an incumbent President can be on the offensive than to try to do it in an open election (which I what I assume 2016 will be.... )

    •  ... (0+ / 0-)

      The Democrats will never have an absolute lock on Texas, Florida, or Pennsylvania. Texas, at max in our lifetimes, will move into swing territory.

      21, Nice Calm Burkean Post-Modern Gay Democrat, NM-2 (Childhood), TX-23 (School), TX-10 (Home); SSP: wmayes

      by wwmiv on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 05:42:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Assuming the GOP adapts, that is (0+ / 0-)

        Immigration is the ticking time bomb. For now, the GOP can stall reform. Within 10-15 years, that will be impossible. They either become at least partially pro-immigrant (ie. DREAM) or they will absolutely lose Florida and the swing West (NV, CO, NM, AZ) for generations, and keep Texas locked in swing status.

        Their biggest problem is that the GOP primary electorate is overwhelmingly white everywhere. Since the bulk of their Reps and Senators come from states with small Hispanic populations, adapting will require a bloody civil war.

        Nominating Hispanics alone won't cut it. Rubio did poorly with non-Cubans and Susana Martinez and Sandoval did not win the Hispanic vote. Young Hispanics are very Americanized and not culturally conservative in large numbers.

        It is hard to see how the GOP does not shift to Lieberman-Cuellar territory ideologically within the next 20 years and remains viable at the Presidential level.

        (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

        by TrueBlueDem on Thu Jun 30, 2011 at 10:56:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Arizona doesn't border Texas (n/t) (0+ / 0-)

      21, male, Kyoto-01 (residence) RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), hopeless Swingnut

      by sapelcovits on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 09:38:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The fact that the President is even with Cain says (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jim M, MichaelNY

    how much these people hate him.

    It's visceral.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 06:11:54 PM PDT

  •  If You Think Obama Is Going to Take Texas - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Then I have a bridge to sell you over the Houston Ship Channel.

    When was the last time a Dem took Texas?  Jimmy Carter in 1976.
    Since then the Dems have lost, on average, by double digits.

  •  Obama will lose Texas by at least 10 points (0+ / 0-)
  •  that picture: (0+ / 0-)

    can you see where there used to be water?
    that's exciting. sometimes progress is slow, though.

    perry? he's a walking wedgie.

    this, however, was a happy read.

    my neighbors are popping their poppers. i hope there are no PSTD folks miserable at this time. the big boomers start pretty soon, and in our small town, it's hard to escape the vibrations.

    The Addington perpwalk is the trailhead for accountability in this wound on our national psyche. [ know: Dick Cheney's "top" lawyer.] --Sachem

    by greenbird on Fri Jul 01, 2011 at 06:24:49 PM PDT

  •  I would ignore these early polls (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As early as June 1992, George HW Bush was leading Clinton in every state but Arkansas and Washington DC.  There was talk that Clinton would be another McGovern.  

  •  I don't expect to win it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but any Republican candidate caught campaigning there after Labor Day 2012 will cause the Punditocracy to smell burning toast.

  •  If the Dems/Obama/et al (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    can just grow these baby steps of late into some real punches against the horror show that the GOP is proudly trotting out on the local and national level, we will coast to a significant victory next year. It is INSANE that the Democratic leadership and the WH hasn't whipped this all into a singular, brutal line again the GOP (at least until very recently, with the exception of very few).  Poll after poll after poll to infinity show that this country overwhelmingly does not want what the GOP is peddling. Hell, much of their base doesn't even want the major items.

  •  Isn't this interesting? (0+ / 0-)

    I have a feeling Obama would win the state of virtually every serious contender on the Republican side.

    I think he'd beat Romney in MA, Pawlenty and Bachmann in MN, Christie in NJ.  It's true Huntsman would surely beat Obama in Utah, but there aren't too many bragging rights that would go along with that.

  •  What I see in these numbers? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pot, MichaelNY

    Obama maxes out at his job approval (43), unless he's up against someone Texans know and hate (Perry) or someone that EVERYONE knows and hates (Palin).

    Losing to Bachmann?
    Losing by even more to Paul?
    Tied with Cain?

    That doesn't scream "Texas is in play" to me.

  •  I wonder.... (0+ / 0-)

    Do Texans disapprove of the job Obama is actually doing? Or do they disapprove of the job that FoxNews, right-wing radio and various nutjob websites say that he's doing... in some absurd oxycontin fantasy world.

    Because those are two very different things.  

  •  Obama in Texas (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I would not call on the national campaign to risk a lot for Obama in Texas. I think this is something for Texas Democrats to try. There are some much better states for Obama to work on.
    Perry should be toxic by now. There were angry Houstonians protesting closings of public schools, and several of these efforts were successful.
    Something important to me: In 2008 we in Harris County elected a number of Democratic judges, and now they are up for re-election.
    Kay Bailey Hutchison seems to be retiring and we seem to have an open Senate seat. I want voters who are serious about wanting a break from Republicans.
    Rick Perry is not up for re-election until 2014. He has already served longer than any other governor of Texas.

  •  Perry and Steer droppings... (0+ / 0-)

    These are TIED for the two LEAST popular things in the Northern province of mexico..... AND, if you ask the ranchers and farmers in most of the province, the cow droppings - even old ones - rank higher in the polls.

    Perry by definition is a loser...

  •  If Perry wins the nomination, he wins Texas (0+ / 0-)

    But even that'll be by a small margin. A lot of other swing states will be up for grabs. Hopefully.

  •  I'm not going to say that... (0+ / 0-)

    ...the president is going to carry Texas against Fair Hair Rick (although I would love to see it happen given Perry's despicable record as governor and his extremist positions), but wouldn't it be fun if the Republicans were forced to spend a ton of cash in campaign ads just to hold on? Given how expensive TV ads can be in the Dallas-Fort Worth market (or even I would think in Harris County (Houston)), that's a whole bunch of money the GOP won't be able to spend elsewhere.

    The people united will never be defeated.

    by alaprst on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 05:35:47 AM PDT

  •  Let me add this (0+ / 0-)

    I'd love to see Rick Perry try to defend his close associations with some nut case pastors-- especially John Hagee and Rod Parsley, should he win the GOP nomination.  Given the anti-Muslim views Parsley has expressed and the anti-Catholic teachings of Hagee, how can Perry legitimately claim to be a mainstream politician while at the same time courting these bigoted religious leaders?

    The people united will never be defeated.

    by alaprst on Sat Jul 02, 2011 at 11:28:06 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site